that here, obedient to their laws, we lie!"
Posted on 03/27/2007 12:57:21 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
By now, dozens of critics have weighed in on the massive box office success of 300, but not one I’ve read has figured out the reason for it. I have: it’s a terrific picture, one of the best in years. When I compare it to the movies that were nominated for Best Picture Oscars last year, it makes them seem to be exactly what they were: watered-down warm milk for liberal baby boomers who want to close the curtains on World War III, and snuggle down under their tie-dyed covers for a long winter’s nap full of tangerine dreams.
They are a weary failure of a generation. Like the British Edwardians before them, they could not live up to the achievements of their elders. So they invented a new set of rules, rules that sounded daring and dangerous and radical, but are in fact puerile, safe and anesthetic. Does western civilization require defense and sacrifice? Well, then ho, ho, ho, western civ has got to go. Does political freedom require responsibility and self-discipline? Well, then we’ll redefine freedom as individual licentiousness. Do other, lesser cultures want to destroy us? Well, then, we’ll join them in blaming America and avoid any unpleasantness. In short, the baby boomers’ leftist philosophy amounts to nothing more than an elaborate rationalization of their own cowardice and a way to dull the pain of the resultant self-disgust.....
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalmavens.com ...
That's exactly what they've done! And this could apply to the libertarians, too.
300 was awesome!
Yes, and the next bit, too: Their licentious behavior makes them feel guilty, but they can't admit it, so they take out their guilt on us.
Not the sensible ones.
Many, if not most, of the philosophical libertarians I've known were not real big on consistent self-control. Maybe my personal experiences with them have coloured my overall perception of the philosophy, however.
Hey now, I loved Little Miss Sunshine! I wanted it to win Best Picture. I was just never that impressed with The Departed. Oh well.
That said, I loved 300. It was awesome. :-)
That's exactly what they've done! And this could apply to the libertarians, too.
Funny, none of the libertarians I know are libertine! One is a complete non-drinker, non-drug user, fellow who is a certified NRA gun instructor when not working his day job as an engineer. Another is a computer guy with a family and a wife of 20+ years.
I think the 'pot smoking libertarian' is a myth, at least in my experience.
OK, I'll be a parrot:
300 was awesome. All the way through I kept thinking: "I can see why the libs and the Iranians hate this movie."
But it will never get a whiff of the Oscars; it fails far too many of the PC litmus tests mandatory for Oscar consideration.
You mean I have to stop referring to the Libertarians as the "Pot and Porn Party"? ;)
It is a comic book writ large.
***They are a weary failure of a generation.***
They are the "Better Red than dead" and "Peace at any price" generation.
Jumbo shrimp, military intelligence, sensible Libertarians (party members, that is).
LOL
Regarding 300, I saw it twice (regular and then IMAX), and the major audience for it seems to be guys having a "guys night out). It's a classic tale that Hollywood liberals mostly disdain: men defending what's important to them against overwhelming odds
Not wanting the government to dictate what we do with our own bodies does not equate to licentiousness. It has to do with who owns us -- the government or us.
It is a shallow and thoughtless person who mistakes the message of libertarianism for libertinism.
You obviously haven't been on a college campus in a while. :-)
Actually, it's probably not fair to count most college libertarians as true "libertarians".
Rules...like gun control. Ban guns and the nasty guns go away. Well, no. Those safe and anesthetic gun-free zones are a tremendrous draw for armed crazies. (The examples are legion.)
Similarly, a spirtually disarmed bunch of tangerine dreamers are in for many rude awakenings. Our modern day Persians want us dead to fulfill their messianic prophesies. Nothing will disuade them except death.
Let me list a few:
Meh. I thought it was OK, but not as good as some other epic movies I've seen. All things given, I'd rather spend an evening watching Gladiator than 300.
When I compare it to the movies that were nominated for Best Picture Oscars last year, it makes them seem to be exactly what they were: watered-down warm milk for liberal baby boomers who want to close the curtains on World War III, and snuggle down under their tie-dyed covers for a long winter’s nap full of tangerine dreams.
Oh yeah, The Departed was a "watered-down warm milk" kind of movie. Whatever.
And when we glorify the heroes who defend our liberty with their lives, it reminds us too that we must live in responsibility to them, not only in our actions but in our philosophies as well.
Every day that we preserve and cherish our freedom is a monument to them, a sign that they are not forgotten. They are never forgotten.
I'm not familiar with this author, but this is a rather good and terse summation of the culture.
The only thing that I thought was contrived was the second dirty cop, that seemed like something he tacked on to help propel the ending along. Besides that, it was Scorsese's best film since Goodfellas.
While I've seen that, and many similar words written to disparage the movie, I think it's worth noting that widespread literacy in western civilization is a relatively recent development, and until post-Gutenberg era, our culture's mythology, legends and ideals were communicated through didactic imagery in icons, stained glass, statuary, painting and manuscripts illustrated not only to augment the written word but to instruct those incapable of reading them. Comic books (or 'graphic novels' if you prefer) are heirs to this tradition, and in many ways, I think 300 brings the transmission of our cultural legends around full circle...a real event mythologized, and communicated through the latest incarnation of the original means of transmitting such.
That second dirty cop, and the changes that his presence brought on, are exactly what I was thinking of.
I also thought there was an interesting portrayal of sexuality in the movie...The scene between Leonidas and Queen Gorgo was portrayed in a soft, sensuous way that lionized the wholesome love between committed spouses.
The seduction of Ephialtes at Xerxes' encampment was all about sex and lust being used to lure and entrap one into the ways of evil.
The movie is based off a comic book writer and the film is fiction not based on reality. Reality is the Persians crushed the Spartans and went on to burn Athens.
The Spartans were mostly homosexuals
They were authoritarian that is why they fought with and did not respect the Athenians
They did not believe in democracy or the Western way of life as claimed
They are not exactly the models of modern society or the advents of modern democracy
Hey, I'm with you. I'm not a party member, but I tend to vote for the Libertarian candidate because it's the closest thing I can find to someone who will actually pursue the Republican Party platform.
Not to mention epic Greek plays.
It is a real shame that we have used the political freedoms, fought for by past generations, to make bad choices
They also practiced eugenics in an effort to breed a race of super warriors. In short, they were proto-Nazis.
Still, there is something about a last stand against overwhelming odds that still fires the imagination.
The point of the movie was not that we should emulate Spartan society or politics. There were many unattractive things about them.
However, the Spartans did have the courage to stand up against overwhelming odds to protect their society from an aggressive ME society that wished to enslave them. They lost that battle, but subsequent battles were won and the Spartan/Greek world was saved. That was the message, and I think that's what most people got from it.
"Free though they are, they are not entirely free - for law is their master, whom they fear far more than your men fear you. Whatever their law commands, that they do; and it commands them always the same: they are not allowed to flee in battle from any foe, however great the numbers, but rather they are to stay in their ranks and there conquer or perish." - Herodotus
I tend to come down very hard on libertarians, but this is probably a case of rivalry between cousins, for I used to be a libertarian, but have since abandoned the position philosophically. I describe myself as "Neo-Ciceronian", and land somewhere at the crossroads between classical republicanism and classical liberalism. I left libertarianism because I felt that libertarians themselves often did not think through the logical consequences of many positions that they espouse, and in the name of "liberty", would actually create an environment where the individual could be just as tyrannous to other individuals as the government is. The whole "private roads" position was what formally did it for me.
I'm big on Lockean-style commonwealth ideology. Government is needed, but it is government which acts as a result of being instituted by a body of individuals, the commonwealth, for the purpose of providing mutual protection, from each other as much as from outside agents. The purpose of government is to provide a stable and peaceful mode of existence (i.e. eliminate the "state of nature") which will allow each individual to then pursue their natural liberties to life and property, without the assault on their liberties that other individuals in a "fre-for-all" natural state would present.
Hence, the role of government should be arbitrative, not regulatory.
Actually, the events depicted in the movie are more or less accurate, from what we can gather from the ancient historical sources. The Persians only crushed the Spartans because of Ephialtes' betrayal, and the the burning of Athens is not within the timeframe of the movie, coming later after the Persians had pressed further into Greece.
The Spartans were mostly homosexuals
Correction - the Spartans (as with most other Greeks), were homoerotic. They did not practice a "homosexual lifestyle" in the sense that us moderns think of it. Pederasty was common in ancient Greece. NAMBLA would, in many ways, have been quite at home in Athens. The Thebans had an elite band of warriors made up entirely of pairs of male lovers. It was a vice that afflicted Greek society generally.
They were authoritarian that is why they fought with and did not respect the Athenians
MOST Greek city-states at the time were authoritarian, either monarchies or under the various tyrants. Even Athens lived under Peisestratus for a while. The Athenians themselves, even under the democracy, still managed to execute Socrates, oppress their "allies" in the Delian league, even razing city-states that wouldn't cooperate with them, and kept a full quarter of their population as slaves.
They did not believe in democracy or the Western way of life as claimed
Well, "democracy" is not the end all and be all of the Western way of life. Indeed, most of Western history has NOT been characterised by a great love of democracy. Even Athenian democracy was not what we think of by the term today.
They are not exactly the models of modern society or the advents of modern democracy
And nobody has said they were. The Spartans had a LOT of serious problems with their societal ethos, not the least of which was that they were themselves an imperial state which had conquered Messenia during the Archaic period and kept the Messenians as helots - serfs tied to land and kept as third-class citizens. Young Spartan men, before their full entry into the Spartan military aristocratic society, would serve a couple of years as "secret policemen", spying on the helots for any signs of dissent, and would more or less summarily execute any thought to be subversive. So yes, Sparta definitely had its problems, and even in Classical Greece, it was viewed as a backward and regressive state.
But the point of the movie, and why we should yet be glad for the sacrifice of the Spartans (and Thebans, and Thespiaens) at Thermopylae is that they really did, historically speaking, give the rest of Greece time to get it together to defend the cradle of our civilisation from the Persians. If they hadn't done so, our whole Western civilisation might well have been strangled in the crib. Leonidas gave Themistocles time to win at Salamis, and this battle, along with Plataea, Marathon, and Salamis, were instrumental in altering the entire course of world history.
That's why this baby boomer is a proud libertarian.
Libertarians will pick up the pieces after the two group-think parties have run this country into the ground, and are run out of town.
BUMP
No, the Republicans are failing because the Republican "leadership" is a copycat of the Democrats.
Unfortunately, on the social issues that count, the Libertarians are a copycat of the Democrats, which is why the Libertarians have gotten about zero traction in the last thirty years.
Yes, that all sounds about where I'm at, too.
***I'm really sick of the Boomer bashing. ***
I AM THE BOOMER GENERATION! I can say what I want about them, yet I have not been tainted by the 1960's radicalism.
Libertarians are the future of this great country because baby boomers are about to retire and govt spending must be brought under control. Republicans are now big spenders and they have lost my vote.
The recent reality is that 70% of Americans no longer support the far right (busybody & hawk) wings of the Republican party as reflected by the 30% popularity of the President. Since I believe in a strong defense I am not part of that 30%. But Congressional Republicans are running from him just look at the recent elections and the anti-war bill just passed.
In many ways this is 1970s revisited.
BUMP
Libertarians are the future of America? Please. Tell me, if the Republicans ever stop trying to be America's sugar daddy, will they get your vote back? If not, then I'd say their big spending wasn't the reason you stopped voting for them in the first place.
The recent reality is that 70% of Americans no longer support the far right (busybody & hawk) wings of the Republican party as reflected by the 30% popularity of the President. Since I believe in a strong defense I am not part of that 30%. But Congressional Republicans are running from him just look at the recent elections and the anti-war bill just passed.
This is a somewhat broad statement that seems to try to distill about ten dozen different motivations people might have for disapproving of the President's job performance into one (the "busybody and hawk" wing of the party). I mean, when polled, *I* disapproved of Bush's performance - because I'm unhappy with his spending and with his non-performance on the illegal immigration issue, among other things. To point to his 35% (closer to reality, like it really matters) approval rating, and read a libertarian impulse into it is simply quixotic on your part.
The fact of the matter is that, on philosophical matters, the majority of Americans are with the GOP. If the GOP leadership would ever step up to the plate, and bring its practice back into line with its theory, then it'd be the Reagan years all over again. And I hate to tell the libertarians this, but that includes the social issues as well. I know that libertarians have this fantasy that a vast majority of Americans really are cool with abortion on demand and gay marriage, and that these only exist as viable political issues because the evil, busy-body, nanny-state Religious Right keeps spending their tithe money on newspaper advertisements, but facts simply don't bear this out. Abortion is a winning issue for the GOP - polling for the last decade shows that a small-but-consistent majority of Americans take at least a soft pro-life stance, and much larger majorities oppose federal funding of abortion (which, to their credit, so do most libertarians), partial birth abortion, and support numerous restrictions on abortion such as parental notification laws. As for gay marriage (which is *not* a "bedroom issue", by the way), even in liberal states like Oregon, the public opposes it by at least 60%. Winning issues for the GOP, and also opposition to both abortion and gay marriage have the added advantage of simply being the right stances to take.
In many ways this is 1970s revisited. And look what happened in the 1970s. Even with the Damoclean swords of Vietnam and Watergate hanging over the proto-RINO Ford, he almost beat Carter (pop. vote was 50.1% to 48.0%, EV 297-240), and that was when the South was still solidly Democratic (VA and OK were the only Southern states to go for Ford). When the GOP got it together and presented a true conservative candidate, they thrashed Carter. Hopefully, the GOP will present such a candidate in 2008, I believe Fred Thompson to be the best choice in this regard, and repeat their performance in 1980.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.